The point still stands, however. Having one very unreliable source (the Gospels) and having it in contradiction it with another (apparently?) unreliable source (Josephus) lends no further credibility to the first source.

The only reasonable conclusion is to trust neither unless further corroborating evidence is found.

The point still stands, however. Having one very unreliable source (the Gospels) and having it in contradiction it with another (apparently?) unreliable source (Josephus) lends no further credibility to the first source.

That would be a valid point if I had started a thread claiming that Luke was correct, but that's not the case. You guys are claiming he's wrong. It's up to you to support that. I don't need to lend further credibility to Luke. This is a blatant shift of the burden of proof.

Quote:The only reasonable conclusion is to trust neither unless further corroborating evidence is found.

Fine with me.

Quote:Such as exists for much of Josephus.

If you had other corroborating evidence for Josephus on the census, then you'd have something.

Quote:And not for the Gospels.

Can you support that there is no corroborating evidence for places and people Luke mentions in his gospel and in Acts?

(19-12-2013 09:14 AM)alpha male Wrote: That would be a valid point if I had started a thread claiming that Luke was correct, but that's not the case. You guys are claiming he's wrong. It's up to you to support that. I don't need to lend further credibility to Luke. This is a blatant shift of the burden of proof.

All the details about how the census as described are impossible are listed in the OP.

Perhaps you should read it.

(19-12-2013 09:14 AM)alpha male Wrote:

Quote:The only reasonable conclusion is to trust neither unless further corroborating evidence is found.

Fine with me.

So, you're an agnostic now? Neat!

(19-12-2013 09:14 AM)alpha male Wrote:

Quote:Such as exists for much of Josephus.

If you had other corroborating evidence for Josephus on the census, then you'd have something.

Can you support that there is no corroborating evidence for places and people Luke mentions in his gospel and in Acts?

Oh, you adorably fatuous little thing.

As, er, my previous post literally and explicitly said, some parts are indeed true, so far as is verifiable. Certainly there are real places mentioned - meaningless as that is; the labours of Herakles "happened" in real places, too. Was he real?

If your standards of credibility (and lack of "materialist bias" ) are what actually causes you to buy into the Biblical narratives - that incidental truths are parlayed into wholesale acceptance of unattested and impossible things - then you wouldn't just believe the one religion, now would you? There being at least as much evidence for numerous others, after all.

(19-12-2013 09:25 AM)cjlr Wrote: All the details about how the census as described are impossible are listed in the OP.

Addressed the numbered points above.

Quote:So, you're an agnostic now? Neat!

Regarding the year of the census, yes.

Quote:Oh, you adorably fatuous little thing.

As, er, my previous post literally and explicitly said, some parts are indeed true, so far as is verifiable. Certainly there are real places mentioned - meaningless as that is; the labours of Herakles "happened" in real places, too. Was he real?

If your standards of credibility (and lack of "materialist bias" ) are what actually causes you to buy into the Biblical narratives - that incidental truths are parlayed into wholesale acceptance of unattested and impossible things - then you wouldn't just believe the one religion, now would you? There being at least as much evidence for numerous others, after all.

I disagree, but as noted previously, this is a red herring and should be taken up in another thread if you're interested. I've done it on other forums. It's not difficult to note differentiators between quality of evidence for different claims.

In the Res Gestae Divi Augustushttp://classics.mit.edu/Augustus/deeds.html the Emperor himself tells us when, with whom he officiated and the results of the three censuses he conducted. These were in 28 BC, 8 BC and 14 AD. In all three cases they were counting the number of Roman citizens...not judaean shleppers from a rathole of a prefecture. Roman citizenship was not automatic outside of Italy and would not become so for nearly 2 centuries after Augustus' death.

No one gave a rat's ass how many Jews there were. And certainly no one would conduct any sort of census in Galilee which was under the rule of a client king by the name of Herod Antipas in 6 AD.

The entire story is totally fucking ludicrous. It is in fact, just as ludicrous as the Matthew version with his magicians from the east and the star bouncing along the earth to guide them to a fucking stable.

Really, how silly do you have to be to accept such total balderdash as "factual?"

Bart Ehrman makes a good case showing that the birth narrative of john and of jesus were added in later editions of Luke. Luke originally started in chapter 3. If read starting there the the first portion of chapter 3 has the form of a prologue. If it didn't start there, it's very odd for Luke to have two prologues in the first few chapters.

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor

(20-12-2013 08:49 PM)Minimalist Wrote: In the Res Gestae Divi Augustushttp://classics.mit.edu/Augustus/deeds.html the Emperor himself tells us when, with whom he officiated and the results of the three censuses he conducted. These were in 28 BC, 8 BC and 14 AD. In all three cases they were counting the number of Roman citizens...not judaean shleppers from a rathole of a prefecture. Roman citizenship was not automatic outside of Italy and would not become so for nearly 2 centuries after Augustus' death.

Actually that text makes reference to a census apart from the lustrum census, and in the general census the point was to see how much the local administrators should be collecting in taxes, rather than how many citizens for whom the lustrum was going to be. The number of non-citizens was certainly important, given they had to pay taxes too (even the number of slaves had to be reported by the heads of household).

(20-12-2013 08:49 PM)Minimalist Wrote: No one gave a rat's ass how many Jews there were.

They sure as hell did.

(20-12-2013 08:49 PM)Minimalist Wrote: And certainly no one would conduct any sort of census in Galilee which was under the rule of a client king by the name of Herod Antipas in 6 AD.